Art and Religious Beliefs of Kangju: Evidence from an Anthropomorphic Image Found in the Ugam Valley (Southern Kazakhstan)

ART AND RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF KANGJU: EVIDENCE FROM AN ANTHROPOMORPHIC IMAGE FOUND IN THE UGAM VALLEY (SOUTHERN KAZAKHSTAN)

Aleksandr Podushkin South Kazakhstan State Pedagogical Institute Shymkent, Kazakhstan

his article analyzes a unique anthropomorphic health, abundance, protection from evil forces, etc. Its T image on a ceramic vessel used as a container for iconographic sources are related to the representative liquids, which was found at the 1st–4th-century CE art and religious beliefs of the ancient ethnic groups site of Ushbastobe in the valley of the Ugam River, of Eurasia of the late Iron Age but also have features Southern Kazakhstan. A multi-disciplinary approach VSHFLÀFWRWKHVHGHQWDU\DJULFXOWXUDOSRSXODWLRQRIWKH explores various semantic interpretations of the local mountain region. On the ethno-cultural level, as image, the key one of which is that it represents farn- farn-xwarnah, this image is connected with the Kangju xwarnah (Xvarᑃnah), a domestic deity connected with state and as well with the circle of Iranian language kinship and clan and associated with good fortune, tribes of the Scytho-Sako-Sarmatian world, where this cult was widespread in antiquity.

The micro-region and the site of Ushbastobe The Ugam region, located in the far southeastern part of South Kazakhstan oblast’, includes middle and high mountain relief of the Karzhantau and Ugam Ranges (up to 2000 and 3195 m in altitude respectively) and the middle reaches of the Ugam River valley, where ORHVV WHUUDFHV DERYH WKH ÁRRG SODLQ DQG D OHYHO landscape cover a territory of more than 50 km2 [Fig. 1]. Bordering this area on the north and south are the canyons of the Ugam River, which thus contribute to its self-contained nature [Fig. 2:1,2]. Administratively, the Ugam area is on the territory of the Kazygurt district in South Kazakhstan oblast’, where the Sairam- Ugam national nature reserve is located. The uniqueness and variety of the ecology in the Ugam valley—the availability of practically unlimited water resources both of the Ugam River and numerous mountain streams and springs, the presence of productive loess terraces, and the self- contained micro-region’s stable mountain climate— favored the exploitation of this territory by humans beginning in deep antiquity. Archaeological evidence of human settlement in different eras includes that from the Kangju state of the 1st–4th centuries.

Fig. 1. Satellite image showing the South Kazakhstan oblast’ and the location of Ushbastobe.

58 Copyright © 2016 Aleksandr Podushkin The Silk Road 14 (2016): 58–70 Copyright © 2016 The Silkroad Foundation Fig. 2. Landscapes of the Ugam River Valley: 1) 9LHZIURP.\U\NN\]3DVV 7KH8JDP5LYHULQ the northeastern part of the valley.

The site of Ushbastobe is located 55 km southeast of the city of Shymkent on the left terrace at an DOWLWXGHRIPDERYHWKHÁRRG plain of the Ugam River, with GPS coordinates of 41º41’55.04” N, 70º02’03.95” E. It is a tripartite settlement with a developed system RIIRUWLÀFDWLRQLQZKLFKWKHGHFLVLYH role is played by the natural factors of the site’s location (the steepness of the slopes) (Podushkin 2000, pp. 28-31). The citadel of Ushbastobe (whose name translates from Kazakh as “three-headed mound”) occupies three levels on a hill of irregular rectangular shape. The main (central) hill (No. 2) at the base measures 20 x 45 x 22 x 45 m; the upper platform (No. 1), 15 x 30 x 30 x 15 m; the lower platform (No. 3) at its base, 25 x 20 x 15 x 20 m, DQGORFDWHGPDERYHWKHÁRRG plain. The site is almost perfectly oriented along a NE to SW axis. It has powerful natural defenses, since there are precipitous slopes on all sides and only from the southeast is connected by a narrow neck with WKH WHUUDFH RI WKH ÁRRG SODLQ >)LJ 3:1,2].

The results of excavations at Ushbastobe

In 2015, the expedition of the Central State Museum of the Republic of Kazakhstan carried out studies on the upper Platform No.1 of the citadel of Ushbastobe, the excavation of more than 20 m2 RQWKHOHYHORIWKHÀUVWFRQVWUXFWLRQ horizon uncovering a mass of ceramic material and other artefacts (tools, decorations, ritual objects of stone, bone and metal) dated to

Fig. 3:1. The Ushbastobe citadel, exterior view from the northeast. Fig. 3:2 Topographic map of the site.

59 the Kangju period (1st-4th centuries CE) [Fig. 4:1,2]. There were shards of more than 60 vessels for various domestic and ritual purposes, among them large and medium-sized cooking pots, kettles and mugs, large and small khum vessels (capacious jars for storing and carrying water), and table ware including large jars and vases and several kinds of cups. Other ceramic wares included frypans, spindle whorls, stands for dishes, scoops and more—all told more than 1000 ceramic artifacts. Some of the cooking kettles are footed, others KDYH ÁDW ERWWRPV WKHUH DUH ÁDWERWWRPHG cylindrical jars with two horizontal petal-like handles on the shoulder of the vessel [Fig. 5:1-4]. These vessels are for the most part un- decorated, but some are coated with a dark brown glaze and have applied cone-shaped projections on the shoulders or arc-shaped “moustache-like” plain and striated tubes imitating either a vine or a snake. Analogous

Fig. 4:1. Ushabastobe, northern part of 2014 excavation. )LJ FRQWLQXDWLRQ RQ QH[W SDJH 8VKEDVWREH FHUDPLFV FRRNLQJ )LJ([FDYDWLRQRIYLHZIURPZHVW SRWV GRPHVWLFZDUH WDEOHZDUH VFRRS PLQLDWXUH YHVVHOV VSLQGOHZKRUO ULWXDOVWDQGIRUDYHVVHO

60 tubes forming a spiral composition of “moustache- vertical notches (incisions) drawn on the raw clay like” elements are to be found where the the petal- [Fig. 5:8-13]. The ritual ceramics consist of miniature like handles are attached and also between them. The cup-like footed vessels and stands [Fig. 5:15-16,18]. small khum vessels and jars are all pear-shaped, with weakly articulated necks, hand-thrown or formed on In addition to the ceramics, the excavation uncovered a slowly turning stand. These and the other ceramics tools and ornaments, including sickles with a bone for domestic use may be decorated with a light brown handle and iron blade [Fig. 6:1,2]; stone grinders [Fig. or gray glaze used to depict so-called oval “eyes” 6:3,4]; a cosmetic implement (sur’matash) for applying with a dark border or masks, with a band of dark slip around the mouth, or with protruding appliqués [Fig. 5:5-7, 14—a scoop, 17—a spindle-whorl]. The tableware (jars, pots and cups) is both wheel-turned and thrown by hand, made of quality clay and high ÀUHG'HFRUDWLYHHIIHFWVLQFOXGHFRDWLQJZLWKEODFN reddish-brown, and purplish slips of various shades; designs in red glaze on the neck and body along the outside of the vessel; concentric wide lines on the nouth; scrolls, which create a focused composition; glaze spots; polishing in the slip; projecting conical appliqués on the shoulder; and concentric lines with

)LJ8VKEDVWREHWRROVREMHFWVDQGGHFRUDWLRQVIURPVWRQHERQHDQGLURQ ERQHKDQGOHIURPDVLFNOH WLSRIDQLURQVLFNOH IUDJPHQWVRIVWRQH JULQGHUV ERQHFRVPHWLFLPSOHPHQW sur’matash LURQQHHGOH DV- WUDJDOLJDPHSLHFHV SHQGDQWRIPRXQWDLQFU\VWDOPRXQWHGLQVLOYHU

61 )LJ 3DUW RI WKH H[FDYDWLRQ DW 8VKEDVWREH LQ VKRZLQJWKHIUDJPHQWVRIWKHYHVVHOZLWK the anthropomorphic image. mascara [Fig. 6:5]; an iron needle [Fig. 6:6]; bone game pieces of sheep knuckle-bones (astragali) [Fig. 6:7]; and a bangle made of mountain crystal mounted in silver [Fig. 6:8]. The vessel with the anthropomorphic image The vessel with the anthropomorphic image was found in these same strata. It had been shattered in antiquity into many pieces and scattered over a large area of the ancient surface among the debris of a large mass of other dishes. Hence, the image—drawn The image on the wall of the vessel in the central, widest part of its The human-like image was inscribed on the side of the body—has been preserved on more than ten large and vessel by drawing on the wet clay using a relatively medium-sized ceramic fragments [Fig. 7]. Probably sharp object with a smooth, rounded tip (a bone stylus tableware or a water jar, the vessel is quite massive or polished wooden stick). The lines are 0.45 to 0.3 cm and could have held a considerable amount of liquid wide, sharply delineated; they cut into the surface of (more than 10 liters). It measures 46.2 cm high, 32 cm. the jar to a depth of up to 0.15 cm, which means that maximum diameter of the body, 11.7 cm diameter WKHLPDJHDQGHYHQÀQHGHWDLOVDUHHDVLO\YLVLEOH>)LJ of the mouth, with a neck 9.5 cm high, and diameter 8:2]. of the base 23.3 cm. The vessel is pear-shaped, with a short neck; it has a petal-shaped vertical handle, The measurements of the image are impressive: its whose upper end was attached to the neck just below height (from the crown of the “hair” in the shape of an the mouth and the lower to the shoulder [Fig. 8:1]. The upper “ribbon” to the lower tip of the ”leg”) is 21.5 cm; vessel was formed on a slowly revolving stand (on WKHPD[LPXPZLGWK IURPWKHWLSVRIWKH´ÀQJHUVµRI the bottom can be seen concentric furrows inscribed the left hand to the outer right extremity of the torso) ZLWKWKHÀQJHU 7KHERG\LVDVDQG\WH[WXUHGKLJK is 14.8 cm. TXDOLW\FOD\DOPRVWIUHHRILQFOXVLRQVDQGKDUGÀUHG 7KHLPDJHLVWKDWRIDVWDQGLQJKXPDQÀJXUHZLWK It is somewhat misshapen, slightly asymmetrical. On the contours of the main parts of the body clearly the upper part of the handle there appears to have articulated: the head, the shoulders of the torso, been a zoomorphic appliqué which was broken off in hands, waist and lower part of the body with with antiquity. The entire surface of the vessel was coated an indication of a “leg”. The head (and “leg”) are with a yellowish- light brown slip and also glazed VKRZQLQSURÀOHWRWKHOHIWDQGWKHUHVWRIWKHERG\ spots (“eyes”) of a darker brown color. The under side apparently that of a clothed male, is outlined by two of the bottom was touched up with a comb while the triangles in a direct frontal pose [Fig. 8:3]. clay was still wet. Preliminary traceological analysis suggests that the image was inscribed in VHYHUDOVWDJHVÀUVWWKHKHDG was sketched with several lines (and its details: an eye with its pupil, eyebrows, “hair”, a nose, a “beard”), then the neck on which is

)LJ 7KH DQWKURSRPRUSKLF LPDJH 1) the vessel with the image after res- WRUDWLRQ WKH LPDJH RXWOLQH DV LQ- VFULEHGRQWKHYHVVHO WKHLPDJHZLWK WKHERG\ÀOOHGLQ

62 anthropomorphic image with male characteristics. We QRWH WKH GRXEOH WULDQJOH FRQWRXUV RI WKH ÀJXUH ZLWK a slender waist and powerful torso, the stylized head and neck, the long arms, and the tunic-like garment in which the individual is shrouded. The garment would seem to be a fastened, long waisted and closely ÀWWHG FDIWDQ ZLWK D WULDQJXODU FXW RQ WKH EUHDVW EXW no collar, and sleeves without cuffs. The long line at the bottom of the garment (a fold?) suggests that it had a generous cut. This is a frightening individual with unnaturally large “arms” extended forward and ZLGHVSUHDGORQJ´ÀQJHUVµPRYLQJWRZDUGDQREMHFW or trying to make contact with someone: the body is markedly inclined forward, and the lower hem of the JDUPHQW DSSHDUV WR EH ÁXWWHULQJ $W WKH VDPH WLPH the dynamism, expressiveness and lightness of the ÀJXUH LV HYRFDWLYH RI LWV Á\LQJ RU ZDIWLQJ LQ WKH DLU RYHU WKH HDUWK 7KH ÀJXUH H[XGHV D FHUWDLQ VW\OL]HG archaism, which prevents its being understood as a completed image, but also suggests a mass of possibly contradictory cultural-historical and ethnographic interpretations. Interpretations )LJ7UDFHRORJLFDOVFKHPHRIWKHKHDGDQGQHFNRIWKHÀJXUH OHWWHUGHV- As is well known, archaism, primitiveness or hightly ignations identify colors for those viewing picture in gray scale): 1) white schematic graphic execution, which by their very (A), red (B) and yellow (C) — lines forming the contours of the head, nature exclude any convincing conclusion regarding QHFNDQG´EHDUGµ EODFN ' ³H\HEURZVDQG´KDLUµ JUHHQ ( DQG WXUTXRLVH ) ³H\HDQGSXSLO EOXH * ³OLQHVVXJJHVWLQJFHUWDLQ the semantics, artistic and functional content of one GHWDLOVRQWKHQHFN DFFHVVRULHV" DUURZVLQGLFDWLQJWKHGLUHFWLRQRIWKH or another image, are fertile ground for all kinds of movement of the stylus. fantasy. While we will attempt to avoid such idle some kind of an accessory (a torque?) [Fig. 9]. Next was speculation, there are details in the image from GUDZQWKHUHVWRIWKHHQWLUHÀJXUH7KHKHDGDSSHDUV Ushbastobe which raise doubts as to whether it is to be separated from the body and slightly shifted GHÀQLWHO\WKDWRIDKXPDQEHLQJ to the left from the shoulders of the torso (no lines &RQVLGHU ÀUVW WKH GHSLFWLRQ RI WKH KHDG :KLOH connect them) [Fig. 8:2-3]. Some 12 lines form the head, on the whole it is similar to a human head, it is “beard”, “hair/ribbons”, eye with pupil, “eyebrows”, slightly stretched and deformed in the sincipital part neck and accessory; two lines outline the triangular cut horizontally and lacks such important elements as of the clothes; another 7 lines shape the right shoulder, ears, lips, mouth or a prominent chin. There is but right hand and end of the sleeve of the garment, while a hatched line imitating, it seems, a wedge-shaped 10 lines form the left shoulder, hand and end of the “beard”. The round eye, very large in comparison sleeve of the garment. Four lines complete the torso ZLWK WKH SURÀOH RI WKH IDFH ORRNV ÁDW 7KDW LV WKHUH DQGJHQHUDOVLOKRXHWWHRIWKHÀJXUH,QDOODWRWDORI is no indication of the eye-socket, something which is 35 lines. The least fully articulated elements are the hardly in keeping with commonly accepted variants “chin” (one line, the continuation of the contour of the of the graphic depiction of human eyes. Also of note head) and “leg” (also one line, the continuation of the is what passes for very sharp beak-shaped “nose” contour of the lower part of the body). While the image with a slight bump, formed by two lines that are not is not overloaded with graphic detailing, apparently connected. It is something of a stretch to interpet the ancient artist was well acquainted with his subject three lines, descending from the head, as hair; they and the relevant iconographic traditions and had full resemble rather ribbons or large feathers. Yet there is command of the techniques to enable him to inscribe no indication of any kind of head covering, WKHÀJXUHTXLFNO\ZLWKDFRQÀGHQWKDQGLQPRUHWKDQ A second observation is connected with the depiction 30 strokes on the rapidly drying clay of a vessel that RI WKH KDQGV RU PRUH SUHFLVHO\ WKH ÀQJHUV RQ WKH had just been shaped. hands, in that palms as such are missing. The human- In spite of the somewhat schematic treatment, there OLNHÀJXUHGLUHFWO\WKUXVWVRXWIURPXQGHUWKHVOHHYHV can be little doubt that we have here a complete RI LWV JDUPHQW IDQOLNH ZLGHVSUHDG ÀQJHUV RI KXJH

63 VSOD\HG ´ÀQJHUVµ DV WKH feathers at the tips of a bird’s wings. Finally, the dynamism of WKHHQWLUHÀJXUHDNLQWRWKDW RIDELUGWDNLQJÁLJKWDUJXHV in favor of interpreting the Ushbastobe image as a zoo- anthropomorphic one with birdlike elements. Possible analogies While there are no direct analogies to the Ushbastobe image across all of Central Asia and Kazakhstan, there are at least some parallels worth noting. The technique of depicting the contours of the head LQ OHIWIDFLQJ SURÀOH E\ drawing with a sharp object on wet clay can also be found on a vessel with )LJ'HSLFWLRQVRIKHDGVERGLHVDQGIXOOOHQJWKÀJXUHVRIDQWKURSR- PRUSKVLQSURÀOHRQDUWLIDFWV DWDEOHMXJ.DLJDUDFKGZHOOLQJ DIWHU a cylindrical neck from the site of Kairagach, SW st st %U\NLQDS)LJ 6XEDUVKDNLGFRLQ DIWHU$EGXOODHY Ferghana, 1 half of the 1 millennium CE [Fig. 10:1] S)LJ &RLQIURP(U.XUJDQ DIWHU5WYHODG]HSS (Brykina 1982, p. 126, Figs. 64, 65). However, even )LJRQS IUDJPHQWRISDLQWLQJIURPWKH9DUDNKVKDSDODFH DIWHU though there is a certain congruity in the deformed 3XJDFKHQNRYDDQG5HPSHO·S)LJ DUPHGFDWDSKUDFW D stretching of the length of the sincipital part of the footsoldier) on a gold plaque from the Geremesov Barrow (after Alekseev S ERQHSODTXHIURPWKH.XLX0D]DUFHPHWHU\%DUURZ head, the Ushbastobe and Kairagach images otherwise DIWHU6WDZLVNLS ORZHUSDUWRIDKRUQSODTXHIURPWKH$N differ markedly from each other. Other examples 7DPFHPHWHU\ DIWHU*RUEXQRYDSS)LJ DVWUDJDOXV RI OHIWIDFLQJ SURÀOHV DUH WR EH IRXQG SULPDULO\ LQ IURPWKH.DODQ0LUFLWDGHO DIWHU'·LDNRQRYS)LJ numismatic materials and which depict ribbon-like “hair”. For example, we see analogous “hair” on VL]H HYHQ IRU ZKDW LV D UDWKHU ODUJH ÀJXUH RYHUDOO ÀJXUHVGHSLFWHGRQWKHFRLQVRI3DUWKLDQUXOHUVRIWKH )XUWKHUPRUHLIRQWKHULJKW´KDQGµÀYH´ÀQJHUVµDUH ÀUVW FHQWXULHV &( >)LJ @ $EGXOODHY S GHOLQHDWHGE\ÀYHOLQHV ZKLFKFRUUHVSRQGVWRKXPDQ )LJ $QLPDJHFORVHWRWKHLQGLFDWHGSURÀOHZLWK physiognomy), on the left “hand” things are different: analogous slightly loosened “hair” is on a coin from LWKDVVL[´ÀQJHUVµGUDZQXVLQJVHYHQOLQHV Kesh of the 3rd-6th centuries [Fig. 10:3] (Rtveladze 2002, Such details then pose an entirely reasonable pp. 75-76, Fig. on p. 75). Lastly, a similar subject (the question: is this image a human one in the full sense of SURÀOHRIDKHDGIURPWKHOHIWZLWKULEERQOLNH´KDLUµ that word? Or did the ancient artist depict some other is on a painting fragment from the Varakhsha palace th kind of human-like being? A reasonable hypothesis of the 7 century illustrating a horseman shooting is that he is representing a syncretic, polymorphic from a bow [Fig. 10:4] (Pugachenkova and Rempel’ (or zoo-anthropomorphic) personage, very similar 1960, p. 75, Fig. 79). to a “bird-human” or a person in a bird mask (a The next set of analogies, also rather distant, is with cock or pheasant). In favor of such an interpretation GHSLFWLRQVVXJJHVWLQJWKHVLOKRXHWWHRIDÀJXUHE\WZR LVWKHKHDGZKLFKKDVEHDNOLNHSURÀOHDVVXJJHVWHG intersecting triangles and also ones which display especially by the “nose”, and bird-like round eye. The the triangular cut of the garment on the breast. For “eyebrows” suggest folds of skin common to species example, note the Scythian armored footsoldier of fowl; the “beard” coming out of the neck could be confronting a cavalryman on a gold plate from the 4th- a cock’s wattles. There are a long birdlike neck and century BCE Geremesov barrow on the northern Black feathered “neckpiece” below the head (a characteristic Sea littoral [Fig. 10:5] (Alekseev 2012, p..170; Gorelik detail for a cock-pheasant), which graphically one can 1971, p. 238, Fig. 4). The soldier and the Ushbastobe fully equate to a bird’s comb (or crest). It would be ÀJXUH KDYH IURQWDOO\ SRVHG WRUVRV RXWOLQHG E\ WZR only a bit of a stretch then to see the gigantic, widely triangles at the same time that the heads are depicted 64 Fig. 11. Silhouettes depicting clothing of armed men: 1–3) bone belt plaques from the Orlat Cemetery (after Pugachenkova SS ² GHHUKRUQÀQLDOIURP the Kalaly-Gir citadel (after Il’iasov 2013, SS)LJ GHWDLORIDSHFWRUDO from the Kobiakov Barrow (after Zasetskaia S )LJ D ² 6LOYHU PXJ from Kosika (after Dvornichenko and Fe- GRURY'DY\GRYSS)LJ LQ SURÀOH %RWK GLVSOD\ D NLQG of forward movement with the hands extended, in the case RI WKH *HUHPHVRY ÀJXUH IRU defense against the spearman. What I would suggest is the leather or cloth lining of the armor has the triangular cut on the breast, as does the garment of the Ushbastobe anthropomorph. Even if, as Gorelik posits, the Geremesov image shows a metal breast- plate here, it still would appear to have a traingular cut. A nearly analogous decorative gold armorplate, mounted on a lining of an open, short, leather caftan, one that has a real triangular cut on the breast formed by the folding of the right side over the left, has been documented for the Sakas of Semirech’e in the Issyk kurgan of the 5th-4th centurie BCE (Akishev 1978: SSÀJ WZR DQWKURSRPRUSKLF ´ELUGOLNHµ ÀJXUHV RQ DQ There are other somewhat distant parallels in astragalus from the Kalan-Mir (Kobadian) site, one carvings on ivory and horn, the most pertinent being: of which is either in a cataphract or in plumage [Fig. • some cataphracts depicted on the Orlat belt 10:8] (Guguev 1992, pp. 120-21, Fig. 8; Zasetskaia 2011, SODTXHVWKHVLOKRXHWWHRIWKHÀJXUHVWKHSRVLWLRQRI p. 178, Ill. 89a). the left hand [Fig. 11:1-3] (Pugachenkova 1987: pp. 57- • Among a somewhat different set of images, note 58); the seated man wearing a garment with a triangular • an anthropomorphic depiction on a bone plaque cut on the breast depicted on a torque from the from the Kuiu-Mazar cemetery, Kurgan No. 19: Kobiakovo barrow [Fig. 11:6]. S. A. Yatsenko (2011, pp. WKHVLOKRXHWWHRIWKHÀJXUHWKHWULDQJXODUFXWLQWKH FODVVLÀHVWKHGUHVVRIWKHPDQDVDVKLUW´ZLWKD clothing on the breast [Fig. 10:6] (Obel’chenko 1956, p. deep triangular cut,” characteristic “for Sarmatians of 223, Fig. 20); any period.” • a depiction on the lower part of a horn plaque from • And note depictions of soldiers in a battle scene the Ak-Tam cemetery: the double trangular contour of on a silver vessel from a burial near the village of WKHÀJXUH>)LJ@ *RUEXQRYDSS)LJ .RVLNDWKHJHQHUDOVLOKRXHWWHRIWKHÀJXUHVDQGWKH 22); triangular cut of the clothing on the breast [Fig. 11: GHSLFWLRQV RI PRXQWHG DQG VHDWHG PDOH ÀJXUHV 7-9] (Dvornichenko and Fedorov-Davydov 1994, pp. on horn “end-caps” from the Kalaly-Gyr 2 site: the 148-50, Fig. 5). FRQWRXUVRIWKHÀJXUHVFORWKHVZLWKWKHWULDQJXODUFXW • Somewhat more distant analogies might be seen on the breast [Fig. 11:4-5] (Il’iasov 2013, pp. 96-100, in depictions of elite Bactrian horsemen hunting, on Fig. 1.1); a bone plaque from Takht-i Sangin of the 3rd century 65 &(WKHJHQHUDOFRQWRXUVRIWKHÀJXUHVWKHWULDQJXODU population in the religious sphere and mythological cut of the clothing (Litvinskii 2002, pp. 181-82, Fig. 34, FRQFHSWVLQVSHFLÀFSDJDQULWXDOV p. 201). The theme of syncretic, “birdlike” anthropomorphs is All of the above-cited analogies to a greater or extremely broad and leads back through the millennia lesser degree are connected with the artistic, cultural to civilizations of antiquity (to the gods of Babylon, and ideological traditions of Eurasian Iranian- Assyria, Egypt, and the Hittite state) so widely language peoples and groups such as Scythians, dispersed across the ancient Near East, Anatolia and Sakas, Sarmatians and Kangju of the period of Central Asia as to render it unlikely direct connections WKH ODVW FHQWXULHV %&( WR ÀUVW FHQWXULHV &( +HQFH can be established for the Ushabstobe image (see, e.g., one should seek a semantic interpretation for Sarianidi 1989, pp. 18-19, Figs. 1-3; Samashev et al. our anthropomorphic image in this milieu and in 2005, p. 89). If one adopts a regional approach, very particular in the Kangju state, whose political and approximate analogies can be found in the Bronze- administrative center was located at that time on age petroglyphs of Kazakhstan depicting people in the territory of southern Kazakhstan (the middle Syr “birdlike” and horned masks (Samashev et al. 2004, Darya and the Arys’ River basins). p. 105, Fig. 161; pp. 132-33, Figs. 106, 145; p. 137, Figs. Archaeological studies of recent years that have 159, 167). Closest of all to our “birdlike” being are the examined numerous monuments of the Arys’ culture, ´VWUDQJH HORQJDWHG ELUGOLNH IDFHVµ RI IHPDOH ÀJXUHV RQHVZKLFKUHÁHFWWKHPDLQWUDGLWLRQVRIWKHPDWHULDO (goddesses) on the Bronze Sarmatian mirror from the culture of Kangju, have determined that this state was Mechetsai cemetery of the 6th–5th centuries BCE on the SRO\HWKQLFDQGLQFOXGHGLQLWVPRVWÁRXULVKLQJSHULRG Ilek River (Smirnov 1968, p. 119, Fig. 2). nd nd (from the 2 century BCE to the 2 century CE) late 1RWZLWKVWDQGLQJ WKH GLIÀFXOWLHV SUHVHQWHG E\ WKH Saka, Sarmatian, Xiongnu and its own Kangju ethnic lack of direct analogies, I would propose that the elements (Podushkin 2000, pp. 147-61; 2010, pp. 207- 8VKEDVWREH LPDJH SHUVRQLÀHV D V\QFUHWLF GLYLQLW\ 17; 2015, pp. 501-14). Convincing evidence regarding of autochtonous origin from the pantheon of gods the Iranian-language population of Kangju is in the related to Zoroastrianism that were venerated among unique Kultobe writing on ceramic brick-plaques ancient Iranian tribes. It is most probable that what found in southern Kazakhstan, which scholars we have here is the farn-xwarnah (Xvarᑃnah), known classify as linear and alphabetic (with the inclusion to have embodied many different characteristics, and of ideograms), created on the basis of Aramaic and worshipped among all the Iranian-language peoples marking one of the dialects (Sogdian/Kangju) of the of Eurasia, including Sarmatia and the Kangju state. ancient eastern Iranian language (Sims-Williams 2009; Podushkin 2013, pp. 93-94). We note at the outset that Xvarᑃnah, according to Semantic interpretations the Avesta, is connected in the closest fashion with ´ZDWHU ÁRZLQJ ZDWHU ULYHUVµ /LWYLQVNLL S The absence of direct analogies to the Ushbastobe ´ZLWK UHVHUYRLUV DQG ZDWHU ÁRZVµ DQG SRVVLEO\ image complicates any effort to arrive at its semantic originally was an attribute of the divinity Apam interpretation. For example, all of the cited indirect Napat, “Son of Water”, whose role was that of a and remote parallels are connected with the militarized protector. In Bakhman-Iashte 2.1 is the indication elite images showing foot soldiers and cavalrymen that farn is the all-knowing wisdom in the form of (or hunting bowmen) who have either protective water which Zoroaster drinks (Litvinskii 1968, p. armor (a cataphract), a single weapon (bow, dagger) 110; Shenkar’ 2013, p. 428). Thus we can appreciate or a complete set of weaponry. There are no weapons WKHVLJQLÀFDQFHRIWKHIDFWWKDWWKH8VKEDVWREHLPDJH connected the image discussed here. The Ushbastobe was inscribed on a vessel intended for storage, use image in no way can be included among the basic and transport of water as the most important factor in anthropomorphic images of Iranian-language KXPDQOLIH7KHIDQOLNH´ÀQJHUVµRIWKHFUHDWXUHFDQ nd st Sarmatia of the 2 –1 centuries BCE, a large part of be understood to be rivulets, streams of water, which which involves horsemen and armed individuals issue forth from the hands, emphasizing abundance of (Yatsenko 2000, pp. 255-62, Figs. 2, 3). that water resource, its accessibility and the possibility While of Sarmatian cut without any accessories (if of unending use of it [Fig. 8:2-3]. Apart from the Ugam one excludes the band below the neck that possibly 5LYHULWVHOILQWKHUHJLRQRI8VKDEDVWREHWKHÀQGVSRW represents a torque) its caftan gives the impression of for our image, there are dozens of large and small ordinary clothing and can in no way be understood streams and hundreds of springs, which personify the as royal or elite. Everything suggests that the ancient abundance of water sources and in a way guarantee artist who created the given image emphasized its WKDWWKHSRSXODWLRQZLOOÁRXULVKDQGHQMR\DIRUWXQDWH other components, connected with traditions of the life (one of the hypostases of farn).

66 In the iconography of the ancient Iranians (in of the 4th century BCE to 4th century CE which Kushan Bactria and Sogd), Xvarᑃnah can appear both embodies the traditions of the Kangju state. Among in human guise and as an anthropomorphic image, the most important hypostases of farn-xwarnah among the most ancient of which is the divinity Pharro, the Sakas, Sarmatians and Kangju, with almost a depicted on coins of two Kushan rulers, Kanishka complete array of corresponding semantic content, and Huvishka (Shenkar’ 2013, pp. 434-37, Fig. 1). are such popular images as the mountain sheep However, with its everyday dress, the Ushbastobe (markhor), the noble stag (and roe deer), the dog (or ÀJXUHFDQLQQRZD\EHVXJJHVWLYHRIUR\DOVWDWXV2I wolf) and the snake. Almost all of these incarnations greater interest are the instances where Xvarᑃnah is of farn-xwarnah are to be found on ceramics of the in the form of a bird (Shenkar’ 2013, p. 438). Among Arys’ culture in incised, relief-sculpted, and appliqué Iranian-language peoples the bird is the symbol of the variants. Such an emphasis on zoo-anthropomorphic sky and sun; certain birds (the cock) play the role of LPDJHU\ LV RQH RI WKH VSHFLÀF FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKDW protectors against “all impurity, evil, chaos” (Akishev culture (Podushkin 2000, p. 96). Thus, the well- 1984, pp. 40-42). We note as well that only birds “are articulated contours of the noble stag (maral) are to referred to in Zoroastrian literature as the incarnation be seen on a seal imprinted, it seems, by means of a of Xvarᑃnah”; moreover, they sometimes are decorated stone stamp on the neck of a khum vessel found at ZLWK´ÁXWWHULQJUR\DOULEERQVDQGRIWHQDUHGHSLFWHG the Tulebaitobe site [Fig. 12:3]. On the handle of the RQ 6DVDQLDQ VHDOVµ VSHFLÀFDOO\ DV UDSWRUV 6KHQNDU· same vessel is a wonderfully articulated snake, an 2013, p. 433). In our variant, the ribbonlike “hair” image that is remarkably realistic both in the pose of descending from the head of the Ushbastobe “bird- the body and in the depiction of the head [Fig. 12:2]. SHUVRQµ ZRXOG EH GLIÀFXOW WR DVVRFLDWH ZLWK UR\DO Among the images of wild animals are a depiction of ULEERQV HYHQ LI WKHUH LV D VXSHUÀFLDO similarity. The Ushbastobe anthropomorph is hardly a benevolent being. On the contrary, the huge eyes with vertical pupils, the widely spread DQGXQQDWXUDOO\ORQJ´ÀQJHUVµZKLFK VXJJHVW ÁDVKHV RI ÀUH H[SORGLQJ RXW RIWKHKDQGVWKHÀJXUHLWVHOIUXVKLQJ forward, all create the impression of threatening action intended to ward off or scare away someone. Indeed, a similar semantic meaning is attached to the farn-xwarnah: often it appears in the role of the defender of the clan, the blood, the family, man, and even the magical protector of the contents of the vessel from “evil forces” (Litvinskii 1968, pp. 110-11). Zoo-anthropomorphic parallels in the ceramics of the Arys’ culture Furthermore, the interpretation of the Ushbastobe image with the same semantic content as the divinity farn- xwarnah GHÀQLWHO\ LQWHUVHFWV ZLWK materials of a zoo-anthropomorphic character found on the ceramics of the Arys’ culture in southern Kazakhstan

Fig. 12. Zoomorphic imagery in the ceramics of the Arys’ culture of southern Kazakhstan: 1-2) from the 8VKEDVWREHFLWDGHO IURPWKH7XOHEDLWREHFLWDGHO IURPWKH.DUDXOWREHVHWWOHPHQW IURPWKH.DUDWREH FLWDGHO IURPWKH$OW\QWREHVHWWOHPHQW

67 Fig. 13. Anthropomorphic relief images on ceramics of the Arys’ culture of VRXWKHUQ.D]DNKVWDQ IURP8VKEDVWREH IURPWKH.XO·WREHFLWDGHO from the Altyntobe settlement. body of a large vessel resembling a jug for storing and transporting water or an ossuary, covered with cherry-red slip and polished. Depicted on it in relief and with lines that had been inscribed in the wet clay is a person, apparently either sleeping or dead: with a precisely and artistically executed, stylized, large and slightly downward bending nose, and well-articulated eyes and mouth [Fig. 13:1]. In the LFRQRJUDSKLF VHQVH³HVSHFLDOO\ LQ WKH SURÀOH³DQG more importantly, in the technique of inscribing the lines and depicting the eye by means of an impressed opening, this second Ushbastobe image recalls the expressive depiction of a human face drawn on raw clay on the side of a jug found at the Kairagach house complex in southwestern Ferghana dated to WKHÀUVWKDOIRIWKHst millennium CE (Brykina 1982, p. 126, Figs. 64, 65). An anthropomorphic image found at Kul’tobe was executed in approximately the same punched-relief technique [Fig. 13:2]. No OHVVLQWHUHVWLQJLVDUHOLHIGUDZQKXPDQÀJXUHZLWKD KDOIQXPEXVRYHUWKHKHDGWKHLPDJHVHHPLQJWR´Á\ off” upwards as depicted on the side of a khum vessel found at Altyntobe [Fig. 13:3]. The nimbus (or person with a nimbus over the head) in part is connected with the so-called “royal” farn (“divine nimbus of rulers”), an attribute of highly placed individuals and rulers of states of ancient Central Asia (Litvinskii 1968, p. 51). DPRXQWDLQURHGHHU´LQÁLJKWµLQVFULEHGLQRXWOLQH We note that the tradition of depicting human on wet clay, and what resenbles a dog or wolf on the ÀJXUHVRUWKHLUIDFHVLQUHOLHIDQGLQVFULEHGYDULDQWV handle of a cup [Fig. 12:6-7]. on the walls of ceramic vessels was common in the But above all, the farn-xwarnah on ceramics of the =KHW\DVDU$U\V· FXOWXUH RI WKH ÀUVW FHQWXULHV &( Arys’ culture is to be connected with the image of the (Levina and Chizhova 1995, p. 187, Fig. 2; Podushkin mountain-sheep (argali: Ovis ammon or Ovis orientalis), S DQG ÀJXUH 7KHUH DUH DQWKURSRPRUSKLF found not only in realistic three-dimensional artefacts LPDJHVRIWKHIDFHDQGSDUWRIWKHÀJXUHRIDSHUVRQ but also numerous partial derivatives such as a stylized executed in relief appiqué and covered with red slip snout, curling horns and their imitations (the conical that have been found in the cultural layers of the rd appliques on the upper part of the handles of vessels). Zhetyasar site of the 3 century CE (Levina 1996, p. Especially noteworthy are the beautifully conceived 247, Fig. 170:2-3). and strikingly realistic execution of the neck and head Conclusion of markhor on the handle of a vessel from Karultobe [Fig. 12:4] and the upper part of a handle with the The unique anthropomorphic image on the vessel spiral horn of a sheep from Ushbastobe [Fig. 12:1]. A from Ushbastobe undoubtedly should be regarded three-dimensional image of a horse in a markhor mask as one of the meaningful examples of plastic arts with the characteristic curved and spiral horns, found HPERG\LQJ WKH SHUVRQLÀFDWLRQ RI D KXPDQOLNH at Karatobe is unusual in its execution and function divinity, farn/xaranah. To date it is the only one that [Fig. 12:5]. has been found across the entire region of Central Asia and Kazakhstan. In its semantic content and Finally, among the ceramics of the Arys’ culture ritual functions, it is closely connected with the are parallels to the Ushbastobe image which may artistic and religious traditions and the ideological be indirectly related to the divinity farn-xwarnah. understandings of ancient Iranian-language For example, there is yet another anthropomorphic populations of the Sako-Sarmatian world and the artefact found at Ushbastobe in 2013, drawn on the Kangju state. This expressive, unusual and to a certain

68 degree contradictory image undoubtedly embodies Dvornichenko and Fedorov-Davydov 1994 VRPH VSHFLÀF ORFDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI =RURDVWUDLDQ Vladimir V. Dvornichenko and German A. Fedorov- religious ideas, even as it must be understood in the Davydov. “Sarmatskoe pogrebenie skeptukha I v. n.e framework of more widespread beliefs common to u s. Kosika Astrakhanskoi oblasti” [A Sarmatian burial nomadic and sedentary agricultural Iranian-language (skeptukha) of the 1st century CE at the village of Kosik in peoples of Eurasia. As a work of plastic arts, the Astrakhan oblast’]. Vestnik drevnei istorii, 1994/3: 141-79. Ushbastobe image undoubtedly will occupy an Gorbunova 1960 important place among Avestan/Zoroastrian icons Nataliia G. Gorbunova. “Rogovaia plastinka iz Ak- and stimulate new scholarly analysis. This especially, Tamskogo mogil’nika” [A horn plaque from the Ak-Tam given the fact that, paradoxically, for all we have so cemetery]. Kratkie soobshcheniia Instituta istorii material’noi far been able to establish about the image, its real kul’tury, vyp. 80 (1960): 93-94. meaning and function, as intended by the artist some Gorelik 1971 two thousand years ago, is still very much a mystery. Mikhail V. Gorelik. “Opyt rekonstruktsii skifskikh dospekhov po pamiatniku skifskogo izobrazitel’nogo ABOUT THE AUTHOR iskusstva—zolotoi plastine iz Geremesova kurgana” [An attempt at a reconstruction of Scythian armor based on a Aleksandr Nikolaevich Podushkin holds a doctorate in monument of Scythian plastic art, a gold plaque from the history and is a professor at the Southern Kazakhstan State Geremesov barrow]. Sovetskaia arkheologiia, 1971/3: 236-45. Pedagogical Institute in Shymkent, Kazakhstan. He is a specialist on the archaeology of Southern Kazakhstan in the Guguev 1992 period of the tribal confederations of the Saka, Sarmatians Vladimir K. Guguev. “Kobiakovskii kurgan (K voprosu and Kangju of the 4th century BCE – 4th century CE and has o vostochnykh vliianiiakh na kul’turu sarmatov I v. n.e.- published four monographs and more than 90 articles. nachala II v. n.e.)” [The Kobiakovo barrow (On the question RI(DVWHUQLQÁXHQFHVRQWKHFXOWXUHRIWKH6DUPDWLDQVLQWKH 1st–beginning of the 2nd centuries CE)]. Vestnik drevnei istorii, REFERENCES 1992/4: 116-29. Abdullaev 2010 Il’iasov 2013 Kazim Abdullaev. “Traditsii Vostoka i Zapada v antichnoi Dzhangar Ia. Il’iasov. “Ob izobrazhenii na rogovom gliptiki Nakhsheba (Po materialam gorodishcha Erkurgan predmete s gorodishcha Kalaly-Gyr 2” [On the depictions i ego okrugi)” [Traditions of East and West in the ancient on a horn object from the Kalaly-gyr 2 site]. Rossiiskaia glyptics of Nakhsheba (from materials of the Erkurgan site arkheologiia, 2013/2: 96-104. and its surrounding territory]. In: Traditsii Vostoka i Zapada Levina 1996 v antichnoi kul’ture Srednei Azii. Sbornik statei v chest’ Polia Bernara. Samarkand: “Zarafshan”, 2010: 32-44. Larisa M. Levina. Etnokul’turnaia istoriia Vostochnogo Priaral’ia (I tysiacheletiie do n.e.– I tysiacheletie n. e.) [The ethno-cultural Alekseev 2012 history of the eastern Aral region (1st millennium BCE–1st Andrei Iu. Alekseev. Zoloto skifskikh tsarei v sobranii Ermitazha millennium CE]. Moskva: Vostochnaia literatura, 1996. [Gold of the Scythian rulers in the Hermitage collection]. Levina and Chizhova 1995 Sankt-Peterburg: Gos. Ermitazh, 2012. _____, and L. V. Chizhova. “O nekotorykh zoomorfnykh Akishev 1978 i antropomorfnykh izobrazheniiakh v dzhetyasarskoi Kimal’ A. Akishev. Kurgan Issyk: iskusstvo sakov Kazakhstana kul’ture” [On some zoomorphic and anthropomorphic [The Issyk Barrow: Art of the Sakas of Kazakhstan]. Moskva: depictions in the Zhetyasar Culture]. In: Nizov’ia Syr-Dar’ia Iskusstvo, 1978. v drevnosti. Vyp. V, ch. 5. Moskva, 1995: 185-201. Akishev 1984 Litvinskii 1968 Alisher K. Akishev. Iskusstvo i mifologiia sakov [Art and Boris A. Litvinskii. Kangiuisko-sarmatskii farn (k istoriko- mythology of the Sakas]. Alma-Ata: “Nauka” Kazakhskoi kul’turnom sviaziam plemen Iuzhnoi Rossii i Srednei Azii) SSR, 1984. [The Kangju-Sarmatian farn (on the cultural and historical Brykina 1982 connections of the tribes of Southern Russia and Central Asia)]. Dushanbe: Donish, 1968. Galina A. Brykina. Iugo-Zapadnaia Fergana v pervoi polovine 1 tysiacheletiia nashei ery>6RXWKZHVWHUQ)HUJKDQDLQWKHÀUVW Litvinskii 2002 half of the 1st millennium CE]. Moskva: Nauka, 1982. _____. “Baktriitsy na okhote” [Bactrians on the hunt]. D’iakonov 1953 Zapiski Vostochnogo otdeleniia Rossiiskogo arkheologicheskogo obshchestva. N. S., Vol. I (XXVI) (2002): 181-213. Mikhail M. D’iakonov. “Arkheologicheskie raboty v nizhnem WHFKHQLL UHNL .DÀUQLJDQ .REDGQDQ JJ ´ Obel’chenko 1956 >$UFKDHRORJLFDOZRUNLQWKHORZHUUHDFKHVRIWKH.DÀUQLJDQ Oleg V. Obel’chenko. “Kuiu-Mazarskii mogol’nik” [The (Kobadnan) River (1950–1951)]. Materialy i issledovaniia po Kuiu-Mazar cemetery]. Trudy Instituta istorii i arkheologii AN arkheologii SSSR, No. 37 (Moskva-Leningrad, 1953): 253-93. Uzbekskoi SSR, vyp. VIII (1956): 205-27. 69 Podushkin 2000 Sarianidi 1989 Aleksandr N. Podushkin. Arysskaia kul’tura Iuzhnogo Viktor I. Sarianidi. “Siro-khettskie bozhestva v baktriisko- Kazakhstana IV v. do n.e.–VI v. n.e. [The Arys Culture of margianskom panteone” [Syro-Hittite divinities in the southern Kazakhstan 4th century BCE–6th century CE]. Bactro-Margiana pantheon]. Sovetskaia arkheologiia, 1989/4: Turkestan: Izdatel’skii tsentr MKTU im. A. Iassavi, 2000. 17-24. Podushkin 2010 Shenkar’ 2013 _____. “Sarmaty v Iuzhnom Kazakhstane” [Sarmatians in 0LFKDHO $ 6KHQNDU ´2E LNRQRJUDÀL [varᑃnah i ego roli southern Kazakhstan]. In: Drevnie kul’tury Evrazii. Materialy v ideologii drevnikh irantsev” [On the iconography of mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii, posviashchennoi xvarᑃnah and its role in the ideology of the ancient Iranians]. 100-letiiu A. N. Bernshtama. Sankt-Peterburg: Institut istorii In: Poslednii entsikopedist (k iubileiu B. A. Litvinskogo). Moskva: material’noi kul’tury RAN, 2010: 207-17. Institut vostokovedeniia RAN, 2013: 427-51. Podushkin 2013 Sims-Williams 2009 BBBBB ´(SLJUDÀFKHVNLH DUWHIDNW\ JRURGLVKFKD .XO·WREHµ Nicholas Sims-Williams. “The Sogdian Inscriptions of [Epigraphic artefacts of the Kul’tobe site]. In: Sogdiitsy, ikh Kultobe: text, translation and linguistic commentary” Trudy predshestvenniki i nasledniki. Trudy Gos. Ermitazha, T. LXII. Tsentral’nogo Muzeia. T. II. Almaty, 2009: 153-71 [also, co- Sankt-Peterburg: Gos. Ermitazh, 2013: 82-95. authored with Franz Grenet, in Shygys: Nauchnyi zhurnal Podushkin 2015 (Institut vostokovedeniia im. F. E. Suleimenova), 2006/1, 95- _____. “Siunnu v Iuzhnom Kazakhstane: arkheologicheskii 111 + 2 plates, where Part I is Sims-Williams’ text tranlation i istoricheskii konteksty” [Xiongnu in southern Kazakhstan: and linguistic commentary and Part II Grenet’s additional archaeological and historical contexts]. In: Drevnie kul’tury historical commentary.] Severnogo Kitaia, Mongolii i Baikal’skoi Sibiri. Materialy VI Smirnov 1968 mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi konferentsii. T. II. Khukh-Khoto Konstantin F. Smirnov. “Bronzovoe zerkalo iz Mechetsaia” (China), 2015: 507-14. [A bronze mirror from Mechetsai]. In Istoriia, arkheologiia i Pugachenkova 1987 HWQRJUDÀLD6UHGQHL$]LL. Moskva: “Nauka”, 1968: 116-21. Galina A. Pugachenkova. “Obraz sogdiitsa v sogdiiskom Yatsenko 2000 iskusstve (Iz otkrytii Uzbekistanskoi iskusstvovedcheskoi Sergei A. Yatsenko. “Antropomorphnye obrazy v ekspeditsii)” [The representation of Sogdians in Sogdian iskusstve iranoiazychnykh narodov Sarmatii II-I v. do n.e.” art (from the discoveries of the Uzbekistan art-historical [Anthropomorphic images in the art of Iranian-language expedition)]. In: Iz khudozhestvennoi sokrovishchnitsy Srednego peoples of Sarmatia in the 2nd–1st centuries BCE]. Stratum Vostoka. Tashkent: Izd-vo. literatury i iskusstva, 1987: 56-65. plus, (Sankt-Peterburg, Kishinev, Odessa, Bucharest), Pugachenkova and Rempel’ 1960 2000/4: 251-71. _____, and Lazar’ I. Rempel’. Vydaiushchiesia pamiatniki Yatsenko 2011 izobrazitel’nogo iskusstva Uzbekistana [Outstanding examples _____. “Sidiashchii muzhskoi personazh s sosudom v RI WKH ÀQH DUWV RI 8]EHNLVWDQ@ 7DVKNHQW *RV L]GYR ruke na sakskoi bronzovoi “kuril’nitse” iz Semirech’ia” [A khudozhestvennoi literatury, 1960. seated male personage with a vessel in his hand on a Saka Rtveladze 2002 bronze “ashtray” from Semirech’e]. In: Istoriia i arkheologiia Edvard V. Rtveladze. Aleksandr Makedonskii v Baktrii i Semirech’ia. Sbornik statei i publikatsii. Vyp. 4. Almaty, 2011: Sogdiane [Alexander of Macedon in Bactria and Sogdiana]. 48-66. Tashkent: Akad. khudozhestv respubliki Uzbekistan, 2002. Zasetskaia 2011 Samashev et al. 2005 Irina P. Zasetskaia. Sokrovishcha kurgana Khokhlach. Zeinolla Samashev, Feodor Grigor’ev, and Gul’nara Novocherkasskii klad [The treasure of the Khokhlach barrow. Zhumabekova. Drevnosti Almaty [Antiquities of Almaty]. The Novocherkassk hoard]. Sankt-Peterburg: Izd-vo. Gos. Almaty, 2005. Ermitazha, 2011. Samashev et al. 2014 _____, Sagynbai Murgabaev and Madiiar Eleuov. Petroglify -- translated by Daniel C. Waugh Sauyskandyka [Petroglyphs of Sauskandyk]. Astana: Institut arkheologii im. A. Kh. Margulana, 2014.